Michael Cooper
Based on publicly available information — may contain inaccuracies
Business & Financial Interests
Before being elected to Parliament, Michael Cooper worked as a civil litigation lawyer. He reportedly practiced law for several years after graduating from the University of Alberta.
Key Relationships & Connections
Michael Cooper is known to be a close political ally of Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre. Cooper served as a co-chair for Poilievre's successful leadership campaign in 2022. He has also held roles in the Conservative shadow cabinet, including as the Shadow Minister for Democratic Reform, placing him in the party's inner circle.
Public Controversies
In 2019, during a Justice Committee meeting on online hate, Michael Cooper read into the record a portion of the manifesto from the Christchurch mosque shooter while questioning a Muslim community leader. This action drew widespread condemnation, and then-Conservative leader Andrew Scheer removed him from the committee. Cooper later issued a public apology for his comments. In 2022, Cooper was reportedly removed by security from the House of Commons gallery just before a speech by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Media reports indicated the incident was related to a dispute over an unaccredited guest he was accompanying.
Where Michael falls on key policy spectrums
Your Money
People & Society
How We're Governed
Land & Community
Michael Cooper won with 49,216 votes (63.9%)
Total votes cast: 76,961
How does Michael Cooper's voting record line up with your values?
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, the's story keeps changing in his role in awarding a $2.3-billion contract to Telesat. The Prime Minister is in a blatant conflict of interest because the CEO of Telesat is none other than one of his closest personal friends. Prime Minister Theinitially claimed that he had not discussed the contract with anyone in government, but yesterday his story changed.
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, that was a yes-or-no question. Thehas a blatant conflict of interest in relation to his friend, the CEO of Telesat, which received a $2.3-billion contract. Again, did the Prime Minister discuss any aspect of this contract with his staff or anyone in government, and why did he not issue a public declaration of recusal as required by law?
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, Telesat received a $2.3-billion contract from the government. The CEO of Telesat just happens to be a close personal friend of the. Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act states that a public office holder shall not influence a decision to further the interests of a friend. Prime Minister Did thediscuss, and I emphasize the word discuss, this $2.3-billion contract
Madam Speaker, contemporaneous consent and issues around the ability to withdraw, or the inability to withdraw in the case of advance requests, which are fundamental to fully informed consent, are not legalistic issues. Yes, there is a legal element to it, but these are profound ethical questions around whether advance requests can be implemented safely. The member spoke of the Special Joint
Madam Speaker, on a question of life and death involving an advance request regime, we need to proceed with caution. If the last five years is an illustration of the need for caution and the need to consult, it is precisely that. Yes, public opinion is one thing, but we need to look at how the regime could be rolled out, the risks involved, whether it is appropriate and, if it is appropriate,
Madam Speaker, I completely concur with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. There is absolutely no reason the provision for an advance request regime needs to be shoehorned into this bill. For years, the Liberals did nothing around advance directives. They did no studies, they had no consultation, and now, all of a sudden, they drop it into a bill in the face of a deadline to pass a
Leader of the Opposition Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the. C-7 The Liberals have learned absolutely nothing over the past five years from their disastrous planned expansion of MAID for mental illness. They decided to move ahead with this planned expansion before studying the issue. They did so by accepting an eleventh-hour Senate amendment to Bill, legislation that had nothing
Minister of Health parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed to theregarding the PrescribeIT scandal. I have to say that a week and a half ago when I participated in an adjournment debate on this scandal, I was astounded that thehad the audacity to say that the way the Liberals have handled PrescribeIT is what good
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources Mr. Speaker, it is a totally inadequate response. What we just heard from the parliamentary secretary was more gaslighting. Her answer was very much in line with the ridiculous answer provided by the. minister Since she will not answer basic questions, such as where the oversight was, perhaps she will answer a very specific question:
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Commissioner ordered theto set up an ethics screen because of his vast conflicts with Brookfield. The Prime Minister's Office claims that for the purpose of transparency, every time a conflict is flagged, an analysis is done and it is documented, except there is zero transparency. These records are not public and they are not being shared with the
Prime Minister Mr. Speaker, this week at committee, it was revealed that the Ethics Commissioner has been left in the dark regarding the administration of the's ethics screen. Decisions around the invocation of the screen are being made entirely in secret by the Prime Minister's top two advisers. Records of these decisions are not being shared with the commissioner, meaning that the commissioner
Mr. Speaker, on the question of mental illness and MAID, I sat on all of the special joint committees in this Parliament and in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, 17 chairs of psychiatry wrote to the Minister of Justice calling on the minister to delay implementation of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. Today, if there is a consensus among experts, among